ME THREE |
|
ME THREE |
|
Destroying Monsters - Part Two By Mark Grueter --------------------------------------- (Click here to read Park One of this essay). Time for an Update Back in the 19th century, wandering abroad "in search of monsters to destroy" may have seemed like reckless fantasy. But the mortal John Quincy Adams could not have imagined that America would ever have the capacity to effectively do just that. This is the reality of our post-Cold War world. The Western Alliance found Milosevic, and removed him from power, without U.N. authorization I should add. Now, the United States and Great Britain are preparing to dispose of Saddam. The clerical regime in Iran, the kleptocracy in North Korea, and the Saudis will hopefully fall, one way or the other, shortly thereafter. Taking these steps will make the world a much safer, and more habitable place for all to live in. What I have argued, here and in other forums, is that most foreign citizens do not reject U.S. or Western intervention in theory. In addition to manipulation and propaganda by political opportunists on the domestic front, anti-American hostilities abroad arose as a result of botched U.S. operations, along with a foreign policy agenda that clearly disregarded the interests of ordinary people. The United States' behavior during the Cold War no doubt helped create anti-Western attitudes. Exhibit A: the brutal war in Indochina. Next: the series of CIA operations that sabotaged democratically elected governments, i.e., in Chile, Guatemala and Iran. Also, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden for a long time, ignoring their depraved agendas all along, as these men were ostensibly anti-communists. These actions, in large part, created the original resentment. Even during the early and mid-1990s, anti-Americanism increased in the former Soviet Union after Western-style economic reforms such as shock therapy failed utterly. However, with the Russian market economy currently growing, anti-Americanism is becoming less and less fashionable. Russian youth are overwhelmingly obsessed with American culture, and they all desire to live in conditions comparable to ours. So, the U.S. government can be judged based almost solely on its own behavior. This is encouraging. And, it is important to recognize this truism, and to never forget it again. This is not a clarion call for world war. Taking out these tin-pot dictators will be no minor task, but these efforts will not take the form of conventional, protracted warfare where hundreds of thousands perish. And they ought not be engaged if the costs involved are excessive. For instance, Kim Jong Il already has nuclear capabilities - an attack on North Korea would place South Korea, China, Japan and Russia in extreme peril. Regime change in North Korea is undoubtedly the ultimate objective; U.S. strategists just need to figure out the best way to achieve that goal. This is another reason to take out Saddam Hussein now: remove him before he has more time to acquire another nuclear weapon, and potentially use it against the U.S. - a desire he has demonstrated an acute eagerness to fulfill. It would be ideal for the United States, in collaboration with other friendly governments and international institutions, to launch a series of campaigns, both clandestine and overt (depending on the circumstances), to remove dictatorial, ominous regimes. It is important to stipulate that this does not translate into assassination or invasion per se. Humane apprehensions and then trials at world courts like The Hague would be a far more promising prospect, strengthening international law and justice. And there would have to be a clear threshold, following generally agreed upon standards, in establishing which potential targets are indeed brutal tyrannies and/or terrorist abettors, and which are not. For example, almost everyone agrees that Saddam Hussein meets (and the Taliban met) that standard. Relevant regimes include those that either threaten the world directly
by arming themselves with WMDs, or those that threaten it indirectly
by harboring terrorists. Regimes that have absolutely no respect for
human rights, that use whatever limited resources in stock to ensure
self-preservation over feeding the masses, should not be left off any
list either. Covert action will often be necessary in order to save
lives and to avoid the destruction of civilian resources/infrastructure
that would result from an all-out war. With numerous allies, a move to take out Saddam is not unilateral. Iraq's unwillingness to abide by the terms of the surrender from the Gulf War, combined with a stack of U.N. resolutions condemning the dictator, means that a U.S. invasion to enforce the terms of these agreements, would not be a violation of international law. Resolution 1441 alone authorizes the United Nations to impose "serious consequences" on the government of Iraq for not disarming. Do more inspections rise to the level of serious consequences? Of course not. And now it appears the United States is going back to the U.N. seeking something more explicit, probably as an overture to Tony Blair and generally skeptical world opinion. There is furthermore the legitimate claim, put forward by the Bush administration and backed up with evidence, that we need to remove Saddam to prevent him from launching a chemical or biological attack, through intermediaries or otherwise, against the U.S. The U.N. charter clearly allows countries to defend themselves.
World Opinion On dealing with world opinion: A wise man once observed, "one correct opinion is worth more than the opinion of a multitude." Who would seriously claim that foreign policy should be engineered and dictated by the whims of a majority? No country in the world is a pure democracy and there are reasons for this. One familiar example - the United States is a constitutional republic. Clearly, the concerns of the body politic need to be addressed in any representative government, but the average American or European is simply not as well informed as leaders and intelligence officials are on matters of foreign policy. This notion strikes me as incontrovertible. If the U.S. and British governments do the right thing in Iraq - a quick war with minimal casualties and the establishment of a stable transitional government with Iraqis in the streets welcoming our troops - public opinion will certainly turn favorable. However, if it appears that the campaign is turning into a quagmire or a real bloodbath or it causes mass instability and rebellion, public opinion will only drop. Similarly, French, German, Russian and Chinese leaders will jump on the proverbial bandwagon if, after the attack ensues, everybody begins to realize that the United States and United Kingdom actually are embarking on a worthy mission. Fearful not to jeopardize their political careers, these politicians will sit on the sidelines until it becomes clear which direction the war is going.
Conclusion However, a new reason has come to the fore, which undermines Bush: his unwillingness to act after all these months suggests that the administration does not fully believe that an invasion is the right thing to do. This alarms me personally. If the American establishment and its supporting intellectuals are so confident that forcible regime change is a morally sound policy that will benefit the Iraqi people and contribute to the cause of humanity, then why does it wait to act? Why was this intervention not over with four months ago? If our governors are truly convinced that history will judge this action with reverence, then it ought to demonstrate the courage of its convictions and act without further delay. The fact that the administration hedges and uses ambiguous language should challenge all regime change proponents to reconsider. Both the isolationist and interventionist strands in American politics transcend the usual left/right ideological spectrum. Traditional conservatism is allied with left-leaning pacifism in the anti-interventionist (or anti-imperialist) movement. Wilsonian liberal internationalism has joined forces with neo-conservatism, and this latter coalition controls the leadership of the two major political parties. This realignment allows individuals to break free from traditional identity politics and it should force Americans to think more critically and/or independently about what they truly value, and what they truly believe. This alone is reassuring. Ultimately, I believe this military campaign might be viewed in retrospect as a $100 billion (estimated costs of a war) foreign aid package for Iraq. The result being the authentic liberation of the people of Iraq, who do not seek to adopt American culture, so much as they hope to adopt America's higher standard of living. With no uncertain amount of gusto, America and Tony Blair will have taken the lead in this new foreign policy approach. From there, all energies should be exhausted in an honest, sophisticated and international campaign to free populations of the world, by purging the monsters that inhabit it. It is bold and radical. Indeed, it is a revolutionary agenda, and that is mainly why I embrace it. The status quo will only prolong human misery, and it is even riskier than the proposal I have sketched. It is untenable as a long-term option. All the other alternative theories rest on obsolete assumptions about the rational behavior of world actors. They rely on conservatism and reticence in a dangerous world that can no longer afford either. Fortunately, if our leaders are willing, it is within our means to achieve these lofty goals outlined above. If we do not strive to follow our dreams and ideals, what else do we have left? --------------------------------------- Mark Grueter lives in New York City, where he is pursuing his master's in Liberal Studies at the New School University's Graduate Faculty of Political and Social Science. He can be contacted at grueter4@yahoo.com.
© 2003 Me Three |